Are We Merely Postponing Someones Vipaka.

[rockyysdt]

It's been said many times, the lot of a travelor (suffering) is the fruit (vipaka) of someones past kharma (actions).

Such fruit may manifest soon after action or bear fruit at some future time.

We are told that unexpended vipaka, not only awaits us, it ensures the cycle of re birth.

If, through our compassionate actions by way of charity, assistance, or by other means, we reduce or remove someone elses Vipaka (suffering), does this mitigate or cancel such suffering or are we merely postponing their lot?

Edited February 7, 2013 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

I think it's impossible to know, but to think of not helping someone in order to avoid 'interrupting' kamma/vipaka is like trying to play god. A lot of people do think that way -- 'they deserved it, don't help' -- even in other belief systems.

The workings of kamma are so complex I think it's beyond any of us non-arahants to completely understand them or to think we know best when to help and when not to. Sometimes there may be good reasons not to help an individual, but I don't think foiling vipaka is one of them.

[fabianfred]

If someone is suffering because of past karma,, I don't think that our trying to relieve that suffering means that they will have to make up for it in the future.

Almost everyone we meet is a result of past karma created together, so we are both paying it off.

Remember the Buddha said that it is difficult to meet someone who has not been a close relative in the past.

[huli]

Some misfortune is not due to karma, isn't that widely accepted? Did all the people killed in the tsunami have a karmic cause? Is all illness caused by karma? How are we to know? To not help some one devastated by a tsunami or illness because it might be their karma, well, I don't think anyone would accept that.

[meadish_sweetball]

Would it not also be vipaka if they received help by us, although perhaps of another karmic seed?

Pondering the subject, the workings of karma on a universal (or multi-universal) scale must be complex beyond normal comprehension, so many strands running simultaneously, intersecting and diverging.

[Jawnie]

If you study the three vehicles of Buddhism: Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, one of the main differences in approach is how we see ourselves in relation to the world. Hinayana says one is not to have a relationship with the world, really. That one gives up everything and everyone - complete renunciation until one is released as an Arhant. According to the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, however, the Arhanthood of the Hinayana is incomplete.

Mahayana includes the same renunciation, but requires one to do so in the context of remaining engaged in the world for the purpose of helping others - this is the idea of the Bodhisattva and of the great compassion of the Mahayana. It is the lack of this great compassion in the Hinayana which makes its Arhanthood incomplete, so say the Mahayanists. However, in the Mahayana, Buddhahood or final enlightenment takes an extremely long time to attain.

The Vajrayana includes the two previous schools but also includes views and practices which bring one to full enlightenment much more quickly than the other two. The Vajrayanist are even very specific about the length of time this can take, eg., some Vajrayana paths take 32 lifetimes to achieve full enlightenment, some 16 lifetimes, some eight....one path claims that enlightenment is possible in one lifetime, but it is not the same as achieving the Hinayana Arthanthood.

The point is that compassion towards other beings and working on their behalf is a key feature of the Mahayana and Vajrayana. Neither teaches that one must reach a certain 'stage' before making attempts to help others. Rather, it is through making those attempts that one acquires the necessary merit and wisdom to reach final enlightenment. That is, merit is generated by expressing the compassion, any compassion, that arises upon seeing the suffering of others. Wisdom arises by trying to help and by learning what works and what doesn't (among other things).

I once heard a Vajrayana teacher responding to a Hinayana practitioner about the practice of compassion. The Hinayana practitioner was making a similar point about helping others but....not yet. The Hinayana practitioner acknowledged that compassion was essential, though, and would ultimately need to be taken up. The response of the Vajrayana teacher was, 'Well, if you know that someday you must take up compassion as your practice, what are you waiting for..why don't you start now?"

[rockyysdt]

If you study the three vehicles of Buddhism: Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, one of the main differences in approach is how we see ourselves in relation to the world. Hinayana says one is not to have a relationship with the world, really. That one gives up everything and everyone - complete renunciation until one is released as an Arhant. According to the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, however, the Arhanthood of the Hinayana is incomplete.

Mahayana includes the same renunciation, but requires one to do so in the context of remaining engaged in the world for the purpose of helping others - this is the idea of the Bodhisattva and of the great compassion of the Mahayana. It is the lack of this great compassion in the Hinayana which makes its Arhanthood incomplete, so say the Mahayanists. However, in the Mahayana, Buddhahood or final enlightenment takes an extremely long time to attain.

The Vajrayana includes the two previous schools but also includes views and practices which bring one to full enlightenment much more quickly than the other two. The Vajrayanist are even very specific about the length of time this can take, eg., some Vajrayana paths take 32 lifetimes to achieve full enlightenment, some 16 lifetimes, some eight....one path claims that enlightenment is possible in one lifetime, but it is not the same as achieving the Hinayana Arthanthood.

These differences can be an issue.

Either one is correct and the others incorrect, or they are all correct, or they are all incorrect, or any other variation.

Such is attachment to belief.

The point is that compassion towards other beings and working on their behalf is a key feature of the Mahayana and Vajrayana. Neither teaches that one must reach a certain 'stage' before making attempts to help others. Rather, it is through making those attempts that one acquires the necessary merit and wisdom to reach final enlightenment. That is, merit is generated by expressing the compassion, any compassion, that arises upon seeing the suffering of others. Wisdom arises by trying to help and by learning what works and what doesn't (among other things).

I once heard a Vajrayana teacher responding to a Hinayana practitioner about the practice of compassion. The Hinayana practitioner was making a similar point about helping others but....not yet. The Hinayana practitioner acknowledged that compassion was essential, though, and would ultimately need to be taken up. The response of the Vajrayana teacher was, 'Well, if you know that someday you must take up compassion as your practice, what are you waiting for..why don't you start now?"

Could the Hinayana practitioner have been referring to helping others through the teaching Dharma Practice?

If so, it could explain the need to be knowledgable through experience before leading others.

Otherwise compasionately helping someone in need by giving, assisting, helping, listening or other should be freely given at any time.

Edited February 11, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

If you study the three vehicles of Buddhism: Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, one of the main differences in approach is how we see ourselves in relation to the world. Hinayana says one is not to have a relationship with the world, really. That one gives up everything and everyone - complete renunciation until one is released as an Arhant. According to the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, however, the Arhanthood of the Hinayana is incomplete.

Mahayana includes the same renunciation, but requires one to do so in the context of remaining engaged in the world for the purpose of helping others - this is the idea of the Bodhisattva and of the great compassion of the Mahayana. It is the lack of this great compassion in the Hinayana which makes its Arhanthood incomplete, so say the Mahayanists. However, in the Mahayana, Buddhahood or final enlightenment takes an extremely long time to attain.

The Vajrayana includes the two previous schools but also includes views and practices which bring one to full enlightenment much more quickly than the other two. The Vajrayanist are even very specific about the length of time this can take, eg., some Vajrayana paths take 32 lifetimes to achieve full enlightenment, some 16 lifetimes, some eight....one path claims that enlightenment is possible in one lifetime, but it is not the same as achieving the Hinayana Arthanthood.

These differences can be an issue.

Either one is correct and the others incorrect, or they are all correct, or they are all incorrect, or any other variation.

Such is attachment to belief.

The point is that compassion towards other beings and working on their behalf is a key feature of the Mahayana and Vajrayana. Neither teaches that one must reach a certain 'stage' before making attempts to help others. Rather, it is through making those attempts that one acquires the necessary merit and wisdom to reach final enlightenment. That is, merit is generated by expressing the compassion, any compassion, that arises upon seeing the suffering of others. Wisdom arises by trying to help and by learning what works and what doesn't (among other things).

I once heard a Vajrayana teacher responding to a Hinayana practitioner about the practice of compassion. The Hinayana practitioner was making a similar point about helping others but....not yet. The Hinayana practitioner acknowledged that compassion was essential, though, and would ultimately need to be taken up. The response of the Vajrayana teacher was, 'Well, if you know that someday you must take up compassion as your practice, what are you waiting for..why don't you start now?"

Could the Hinayana practitioner have been referring to helping others through the teaching Dharma Practice?

If so, it could explain the need to be knowledgable through experience before leading others.

Otherwise compasionately helping someone in need by giving, assisting, helping, listening or other should be freely given at any time.

It isn't an issue of one being right and the other being wrong. It's an issue of completeness. The Vajrayana includes both Hinayana and Mahayana; Mahayana includes the Hinayana views. However, in both cases, they include broader views than those of the Hinayana. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, just has more complete or expansive teachings and practices including broader views of the path and the result.

With regard to teaching the Dharma, one should not teach until one is qualified, but there are other, unlimited ways to help people. If you say you can only help people by teaching the Dharma but you aren't qualified to do that, you have said you can't help anyone. That is classic Hinayana...Mahayana doesn't say that. It says you must start now...start developing your compassion and connection with others as part of your path. And, for the duration, you must keep your Dharma commitments and oaths. This is how action becomes Dharma practice.

[sabaijai]

Would it not also be vipaka if they received help by us, although perhaps of another karmic seed?

Pondering the subject, the workings of karma on a universal (or multi-universal) scale must be complex beyond normal comprehension, so many strands running simultaneously, intersecting and diverging.

Absolutely, it could be kusala (wholesome) vipaka

[sabaijai]

If you study the three vehicles of Buddhism: Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, one of the main differences in approach is how we see ourselves in relation to the world. Hinayana says one is not to have a relationship with the world, really. That one gives up everything and everyone - complete renunciation until one is released as an Arhant. According to the Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, however, the Arhanthood of the Hinayana is incomplete.

Mahayana includes the same renunciation, but requires one to do so in the context of remaining engaged in the world for the purpose of helping others - this is the idea of the Bodhisattva and of the great compassion of the Mahayana. It is the lack of this great compassion in the Hinayana which makes its Arhanthood incomplete, so say the Mahayanists. However, in the Mahayana, Buddhahood or final enlightenment takes an extremely long time to attain.

The Vajrayana includes the two previous schools but also includes views and practices which bring one to full enlightenment much more quickly than the other two. The Vajrayanist are even very specific about the length of time this can take, eg., some Vajrayana paths take 32 lifetimes to achieve full enlightenment, some 16 lifetimes, some eight....one path claims that enlightenment is possible in one lifetime, but it is not the same as achieving the Hinayana Arthanthood.

These differences can be an issue.

Either one is correct and the others incorrect, or they are all correct, or they are all incorrect, or any other variation.

Such is attachment to belief.

The point is that compassion towards other beings and working on their behalf is a key feature of the Mahayana and Vajrayana. Neither teaches that one must reach a certain 'stage' before making attempts to help others. Rather, it is through making those attempts that one acquires the necessary merit and wisdom to reach final enlightenment. That is, merit is generated by expressing the compassion, any compassion, that arises upon seeing the suffering of others. Wisdom arises by trying to help and by learning what works and what doesn't (among other things).

I once heard a Vajrayana teacher responding to a Hinayana practitioner about the practice of compassion. The Hinayana practitioner was making a similar point about helping others but....not yet. The Hinayana practitioner acknowledged that compassion was essential, though, and would ultimately need to be taken up. The response of the Vajrayana teacher was, 'Well, if you know that someday you must take up compassion as your practice, what are you waiting for..why don't you start now?"

Could the Hinayana practitioner have been referring to helping others through the teaching Dharma Practice?

If so, it could explain the need to be knowledgable through experience before leading others.

Otherwise compasionately helping someone in need by giving, assisting, helping, listening or other should be freely given at any time.

It isn't an issue of one being right and the other being wrong. It's an issue of completeness.

That's basically saying the same thing, ie, '"Hinayana" isn't complete.' In fact 'Hinayana' is basically Mahayana code for 'incomplete', ie 'we know better'. However within it's own belief system it is just as complete as Mahayana, of which Vajrayana is a part. These are schools of Buddhism, one no more complete than the other except in their extreme sectarian interpretations.

No Theravadin I know advocates complete disengagement from the world. Attainment requires compassion in just as great a measure as wisdom and concentration.

"Lesser vehicle, greater vehicle, all vehicles will be towed at owner's expense." -- Kenneth Patchen.

[Several]

Personally I couldn't give a fig about merit or kammic consequence when it comes to helping. I just do it if I can. If the one helped asks if they can do anything in return I say that one day, when the opportunity arises, help some other being with no expectation of reward.

[rockyysdt]

Personally I couldn't give a fig about merit or kammic consequence when it comes to helping. I just do it if I can. If the one helped asks if they can do anything in return I say that one day, when the opportunity arises, help some other being with no expectation of reward.

This is the human way.

To help someone because they need help, no other reason.

I'm uneasy for those who not only give for reward, but choose the recipiant based on purported maximum reward.

[fabianfred]

When we are children we like to get presents but when older we get more pleasure giving them. Those who are new to or have a shallow understanding of the dhamma like to make merit, but those with a more mature attitude do good just for the love of good, without hope of reward.

We should love all beings equally...love meaning in this case compassion, which i see as love combined with pity. Pity for those beings still struggling in ignorance of the truth, the correct path.

All beings yet to achieve stream-entry, still stuck in Samsara, are to be pitied.

[rockyysdt]

When we are children we like to get presents but when older we get more pleasure giving them. Those who are new to or have a shallow understanding of the dhamma like to make merit, but those with a more mature attitude do good just for the love of good, without hope of reward.

We should love all beings equally...love meaning in this case compassion, which i see as love combined with pity. Pity for those beings still struggling in ignorance of the truth, the correct path.

All beings yet to achieve stream-entry, still stuck in Samsara, are to be pitied.

Exactly.

It is out of compassion.

Well covered in the Brahma Viharas.

1. Metta: boundless friendness

2. Karuna: compassion

3. Mudita: sympathetic joy

4. Upekkha: equanimity

The only exception being that the correct interpretation of Metta is abounding friendliness rather than "loving kindness".

If you observe the Dalai Lama, he abounds with friendliness.

There are those who will never love me and there are others who I may never come to love, but I can abound in friendliness towards them as well as deep compassion.

I wouldn't pity others though.

Wouldn't that place me above them?

Edited February 24, 2013 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Perhaps pity, or the way people usually decide on its meaning, is the wrong word....but it doesn't have to imply looking down upon someone (or some other being).

Beings in whatever realm are all struggling to be free of suffering and we should even pity ourselves if we are still stuck in samsara.

One who has reached any of the four Ariya states is certainly a superior being, but they wouldn't have ego problems so they could feel pity and have compassion for all ordinary worldly beings. An arahant would still urge stream-enterers to strive to reach arahanthood and be free from suffering.

I feel sorry for those Thais who have been born Thai and have close contact with Buddhism, but have turned away (or been aggressively converted) to christian.

It is like they won the lottery, but threw away the ticket.

To have wrong view is harmful to oneself, but to teach others and spread that wrong view must be bad karma.

[rockyysdt]

Perhaps pity, or the way people usually decide on its meaning, is the wrong word....but it doesn't have to imply looking down upon someone (or some other being).

Beings in whatever realm are all struggling to be free of suffering and we should even pity ourselves if we are still stuck in samsara.

One who has reached any of the four Ariya states is certainly a superior being, but they wouldn't have ego problems so they could feel pity and have compassion for all ordinary worldly beings. An arahant would still urge stream-enterers to strive to reach arahanthood and be free from suffering.

I feel sorry for those Thais who have been born Thai and have close contact with Buddhism, but have turned away (or been aggressively converted) to christian.

It is like they won the lottery, but threw away the ticket.

To have wrong view is harmful to oneself, but to teach others and spread that wrong view must be bad karma.

I understand what you mean Fred.

It can be down to the choice of words.

To me "to pity" is suggestive of being above, and no one really likes to be pitied for this reason.

Pity seems to place a person but doesn't generate positive action.

Even the Buddha was involved with countless re births, so I just view those who don't practice as before their apointed time.

I don't think they'll suffer any more or less than we might have already, in the past.

Perhaps some serious dhukka awaits all of us, just around the corner.

I like Metta & Karuna rather than pity, as these ingratiate us to others and motivate us to help.

Edited February 25, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Pity can stop the hand that is about to kill. A homeless wanderer can feel pity for the king in a golden cage. Its not such a bad thing as it indicates the presence of metta and karuna. Pity is for a persons predicament not the being themselves so it does not usually show superiority. Self pity on the other hand is not desireable.

[Several]

Resisting the urge to quote Mr. T.

[fabianfred]

As we know, translating one language into another is not easy. Metta, Karuna, Upekkha, Mudita are Pali words and not easy to give one word equivalents. My personal interpretation of compassion is, as I've said, pity and love combined.

The Buddhas countless lives perfecting himself as a Boddhisatta were for a reason, to achieve Buddhahood and try to teach other beings how to escape from the prison of samsara. Our countless lives are a result of ignorance, of how to escape and how karma is the cause of rebirth.

Those who achieve the incredibly fortunate rebirth as human, and have managed to do so when a Buddha's teachings are still extant, but are born into a part of the World or religion where they fail to meet Buddha's Dhamma, are said to lack Paramis.